Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.5.4. Publish a DMARC Policy for the Author Domain - dmarcbis-06

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 12:22:57 PM EDT John R Levine wrote:
> > Scott took the time to define PSDs and PSOs in RFC 9091, restated in
> > Sections 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 of the current draft.  Since the definitions of
> > Organizational Domain (both the current 3.2.7 an my proposed change)
> > require PSD + 1, a PSD has to be a proper subdomain of another PSD in
> > order to admin an Organizational Domain itself.
> 
> I don't agree, but whatever.
> 
> [ long list of PSDs that send and receive mail ]
> 
> > _dmarc.ac.me TXT "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r; fo=0; pct=100;
> > rua=mailto:[e-mail]" ac.me mail is handled by 10 mail.ac.me.
> > ac.me TXT "v=spf1 mx ip4:89.188.43.10 ip6:2a02:4280:0:200:89:188:43:10
> > -all"
> > 
> > All of the above admit no org domain.
> 
> If I have a message from [e-mail] and it has valid SPF of mail.ac.me, is
> that aligned?  Why or why not?

I think for a PSD that sends mail, the current definitions would require Mail 
>From for SPF or d= for DKIM to be the same because they wouldn't end up having 
the same org domain.  It might be simple enough to say to ignore psd=y or a 
lower level psd=n if the 5322.From has a domain with psd=y (they can always 
set strict alignment if they don't want lower level stuff to match).

Scott K